Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

Obama Talks Up Counterterrorism Efforts

By Peter Baker October 6, 2009 12:54 pmOctober 6, 2009 12:54 pm

Pool photograph by Brooks KraftPresident Obama visited the National Counterterrorism Center just outside Washington in McLean, Va. on Tuesday. At right is Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair.

During a visit to the National Counterterrorism Center just outside Washington in McLean, Va., Mr. Obama hailed successes against Al Qaeda and its allies “especially in recent months and days.” He cited in particular the arrest of Najibullah Zazi, an American who authorities said was trained by Al Qaeda in Pakistan in preparation for an attack in the United States.

“Because of you, and all the organizations you represent,” Mr. Obama told employees at the center, “we’re making real progress in our core mission – to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and other extremist networks around the world.”

Citing a counterterrorism expert, Mr. Obama added: “Because of our efforts, Al Qaeda and its allies have not only lost operational capacity, they’ve lost legitimacy and credibility.”The president’s speech.
But he warned that America’s enemies are still plotting and should not be underestimated. “We will target Al Qaeda wherever they take root,” he said. “We will not yield in our pursuit, and we are developing the capacity and the cooperation to deny a safe haven to any who threaten America and its allies.”

Mr. Obama made no mention of his ongoing review of his strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but recent progress in the counterterrorist campaign, particularly in the border areas of Pakistan, has influenced the debate. Some officials, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., have argued against a proposed major troop buildup in Afghanistan in favor of a recalibrated mission focusing more on hunting down Al Qaeda through unmanned drones and special forces.

White House officials said the president’s visit to the National Counterterrorism Center was not related to the Afghanistan review. But the public focus on recent efforts to eliminate Al Qaeda’s top hierarchy through so-called surgical strikes could provide political cover for Mr. Obama should he reject the most expansive request for 40,000 more troops.

Administration officials said the United States has killed or captured 11 of the 20 most wanted figures in the Afghan-Pakistani border area over the last year, as well as another four who were later added to the list. They said Al Qaeda’s capacity has been severely damaged and that some foreign fighters, like Uzbeks, Chechens and Yemenis, have begun going home.

At the same time, the Bush administration also touted successes in eliminating senior Al Qaeda figures, only to find new recruits taking their place. And the Obama administration appears no closer than its predecessor in tracking down Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawarhi, or Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Afghan Taliban leader.

In his 10-minute speech, Mr. Obama noted that “no one can ever promise that there won’t be another attack on American soil.” But he added: “I can promise you this: I pledge to do everything in my power as president to keep America safe.”

Mr. Obama later in the day will host about 30 leaders of both parties in Congress to discuss his Afghanistan-Pakistan review. He will meet his national security team on Wednesday and again Friday as part of the effort to chart a new course in response to the dire assessment and troop request submitted by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan.

Video

Obama Speaks on Counterterrorism

President Obama visited the National Counterterrorism Center on Tuesday to call attention to recent missile strikes and raids that have killed Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere. (Video: MSNBC)

3. Announce that if the Afghan government wants to extradite any members of the Bush-Cheney administration, the U.S. government will cooperate fully as long as international law and the legal rights of the accused parties are respected.

Talk less and do more, eh Jane (#2)? Isn’t that what the last President did, Jane? Did it help?

No, I think I vastly prefer someone who thinks before he acts (thinking intelligentlly often involves speaking to other people at some point, to test your opinion).

Even if he ends up doing something I disagree with, I can at least rest assured that he, and any number of people, thought and fought it out for a while. I no longer have to worry that the President is like a five year old on a tantrum, with an evil vice president pulling the strings from the dark.

For the scold who denounced McCain/Bush more than a year ago for not nabbing bin Laden “in the cave where he lives!!!” Barack is pretty slow to step up to that cave himself. Or is it that this address is NOT public knowledge? Hmmmm. This is one pathetic operator. As he prepares to bug out from Afghanistan, which he called perpetually “a war of necessity” he engages in photo-opism just as on healthcare. There is no there there in either case. In ANY case. An empty suit would be a vast improvement over this Armani-clad tweeny-bopper. This guy is all image. He knows nothing of recent events or history on these matters. He says whatever any particular audience wants to hear, heedlessly contradicting himself from venue to venue. He cares to know nothing of American interests. He cares to hear nothing that contradicts his blind, flailing efforts. Shutting down all human rights monitoring of Iran is his latest disgrace of commission but his ommissions stack up even higher. Lucky we won the Iraq war before The One got ahold of the reigns. He would certainly have bugged out of there absent the results of The Surge which he derided and opposed and the success of which showed him to be the incompetent unteachable idealogue we see before us. An empty suit? These clothes have no emperor. This guy is an empty coat hook.

I think what Jane #2 meant was for Obama to stop blowing hot air on the American people and produce some real results and numbers. Obama’s talking doesn’t accomplish anything other then typical political self-pandering (prefer to use a more derogatory word, but I will bite my tongue). We can talk about problems all day, we can suggest solutions all day, we can say we can make a difference, but without empirical evidence, how can we prove what he has accomplished…because I don’t see any changes.

Even thought Al-Qaeda is a priority, the situation is Afgan-Pak region is tricky in many ways:

1) Talibans and Al-Qaeda are part of Pashtuns
2) Pashtuns are shunned in both Afghanistan and Pakistan on all major military posts.
3) Afghanistan/Pakistan tribal area people do not like foreigners of any kind.
4) We do not have support from locals therefore hard to win the war.
5) Prolonged presense has caused suspicion and distrust.
6) Pakistan’s civilian government can’t be trust with Aids money.
7) Karzai is out of touch with Afghans.
8) Rugged terrains and moutains are known to locals but not to American forces.
9) Tribal leaders are powerless to take control of their regions in ever escalating conflict.
10) Pakistan’s ISI still supports Talibans and Terrorist networks.

And when exactly do we get our apology from Al Qaeda for murdering our citizens on 9/11. Will that be shortly before or after we get an apology from the Afghans (taliban) who harbored and protected the murderers of 9/11?

Hey Miles – That’s a great approach if you live in an idealistic la-la-land where everyone loves each other and accepts apologies as the end of all arguments. Unfortunately, there’s a group called al Qaeda that would kill you in a nanosecond, a group that can not be negotiated with unless you meet all of its demands. Wake up!

D (and other Obamatons):
The fact that GW Bush was a bad president doesn’t absolve Obama for doing nothing and only talking, and delivering rousing speeches. Talk is cheap.
Real change cannot happen till we stop living in the past and judging all Obama actions by compaing him to GW Bush. Obama should be held to the standards he promised in the election campaign, so far he has not yet kept up to his own standards.

Don’t forget about the home-grown terrorists: corrupt financial institutions and insurance companies. Over the last decade, I believe these two industries have done enough damage on American soil to have their C-level executives shipped off to an island encampment. Thanks for keeping our country safe, GOP (Greedy-Old-Party)!

Apologize to the “Afghan People” eh Miles? Tell me, what “Afghan People” are you referring to? You mean, the Taliban who allowed Al Qaeda terrorists to train in their country so they could come over here and hurt us, or the hundreds of ruthless chieftains who care not a whit, about the people they dominate and slave at the point of an AK-47? Do you honestly believe that putting your sweet and oh-so-innocent bleeding heart in the hands of these people will result in Peace and Happiness for all, or are you just a hypochrite who takes advantage of everything that is good in our society but never hesitate to criticize it and never see a good reason to stand for it? I bet on the last.

The attacks of 9/11/2001 were planned and launched from Afghanistan’s soil before we invaded. We didn’t make Afghanistan screwed up, it was that way before we arrived. This stands in contrast to Iraq, which had serious issues internally but at least wasn’t a haven for terrorists seeking to strike out at Westerners wherever they are. I still agree with the decision to go into Afghanistan, but think that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake. One of the reasons we’re unable to make as much progress in Afghanistan (and we’ve even moved backwards in some areas) is that our armed forces are stretched thin because of Iraq.

Jane (#5): so what is your answer? Obama should stop talking and do what? That is what he is trying to figure out, but you don’t get that. You, and your kind, would rather he do something, anything, no matter what it is. You try to simplify an extremely difficult and sensitive situation into: “Camon, just pick an option already and do it!”.

I agree with D (#4): at least when some action is taken, we can rest assured that it has been deliberated, even if we don’t necessarily agree.

“Counter-terrorism” itself is not an intelligent approach; the only strategy that can work is counter-insurgency which involves a level of support from the Afghan people. This isa part of McChrystal’s and Petraeus’ view of what will work, if more troops are provided.

As for Obama, he ‘talks up’ a lot of things these days, but his listeners, even Dems, are shrinking.

thank-you Jane Smith. I voted for Obama, but find at this point talk and public appearance cheap. He has been mostly inactive, shown no genuine initiative, not taken responsibility for anything and has not been honest with the people of the USA. He should get up there tonite – say “times are tough, the deficit will kill us all very soon, the CO2 we emit will kill us later and our dependence on foreign oil is the cause of many of our problems, thus I am immediately instituting a One dollar a gallon gasoline tax that will rise 10 cents every month until a gallon of gas in the US costs the same as it does in the United Kingdom, Germany and France. That revenue will go to balance the budget, any further stimulus needed and the development of green energy.” That would be something to hear.

We had more than enough of grass-root style e-mail chains, crowd pleasing speaches. It is high time for Mr. Obama to demonstrate that he can work with the congress and the senate. His own electorate is geting impatient and disappointed.

Only conservatives consider themselves the silent majority, consistently criticizing and and undermining US foreign and domestic policy. Republicans seem to forget that lost every major election in the past few years, seeing their base divided and dwindling, and they still think they’re a “majority?”

How can you say Obama’s listeners are shrinking?

Handing the country back over to Afghanistan is the worst mistake possible, and to go in with guns blazing and 100,000 more troops is also a poor solution.

Obama is trying to find that happy medium, a comprehensive stratagem that will work best for our efforts, global interests and yield the most optimal outcomes. What those outcomes are, I’m sure no one is the wiser at this point, as no one is quite sure how to get there either, but we’re hoping it starts with peace and ends with stability in the region.

We can’t rebuild Afghanistan into a functioning country with 1 million troops there. Soldiers and Marines are not nation builders. They did their job, pull ’em out. The whole rock heap isn’t worth the lives of U.S. troops we’ve lost just this week. You can’t drag people from the 6th century into the 21st century unless they want to make the trip. And this part of the world isn’t interested. We can always kill bin Laden from a distance.

“lost operational capacity?” What’s next, “fighting ’em there so we don’t have to fight ’em here?” I thought we voted AGAINST more Bush foreign policy last November. On issue after issue Obama is continuing to disappoint!

Wow… who can understand some people in this country? This president is a complete DOer type of executive and because he is a far better speaker than Bush who couldn’t even talk right in public, well… Obama gets the short end of the stick by some of these ‘folksies’ Yes… the man (Obama) has an extraordinary rhetoric capacity and it’s meaningful. He’s most definitely not a sophist like his critics.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…